From the newsletter of Jennifer Roback Morse.

The wedding photographer as a independent contractor has every right to refuse any contract offer to her

those two lesbians are just looking for easy money

YOU CAN not force someone to provide you services for remuneration

I simply can't understand the obsession with homosexuality in this Forum! I wonder why all such threads here receive so many replies, like that one about sexual relations with animals, of all things. Is it because so many straight guys feel threatened by it all - especially when it concerns gay men? I am straight myself and would no more entertain the idea of engaging in sexual activity of any kind with another male than I would of sticking pins into my eyeballs one after the other, but I am perfectly unfazed with the idea of other men seeking sexual pleasure with each other if that's the way they are.

Surely the main purpose of this Forum is to thrash out the problems of living in a virulently anti male society and constant male bashing in so many quarters, made even worse by a general acceptance of it as if it's all quite "normal".

As far as I'm concerned there should be no difference whatsoever in the way males and females are portrayed and represented in all aspects of society in general, with especial emphasis on the media here in the West.

There should be a blanket ban on man bashing in much the same way as there most definitely is when it comes to woman bashing.

That is far more of an important issue than banging on about two blokes or two birds standing at an altar somewhere being showered with blessings for their union and then with confetti or, and this really IS revolting - abusing animals in a horribly grotesque and truly unnatural way.

Did you read the first post at all? We're worried about the social and legal implications.

Someone mentioned the "slippery slope" recently...

There is NO 'obsession' with homosexuality here, Ledburn.

What people want to do in privacy is their business, not mine. And it should NOT be the State's business either.

But the State makes it it's business in order to weaken heterosexual men. The State 'empowers' anyone and anything that act against ordinary, normal men. The State encourages anything that reduces the influence of ordinary men.

The State acts against marriage between men and women (which has always been the One Institution which binds people together) providing easy and facilitated unilateral divorce which dispossesses men , makes women dependant on the State and puts their children under State 'protection'.

By encouraging homosexual relationships and granting them the traditional privileges and security of marriage it further reduces the importance of marriage, and therefore normal relations, and detaches children from parents. It's aim is to isolate. Divide and enslave.

Homosexuals are being 'used' by the State. Homosexuals are 'useful idiots'.

I Agree 100%

Percy
YEP!
NO HOMO RULE

I disagree.
I've gone on, perhaps ad nauseam, elsewhere concerning the usurpation of the language.
I wouldn't say that homosexuals are being used as useful idiots.
I DO hold that to be demonstrably true for Feminist (and their "useful"allies,-most notably), the GLBT "communiity, as well as their "other" strange bedfellows such as NAMBLA and "Truthers".

Mere fussy semantics on my part.

No Ledburian, for me, it's NOT an obsession with homosexuals.
Is it an obsession for you to decry ANY criticism, or imply -phobia, when the words homosexual, gay, chicken hawks, lesbian (often a misnomer), faggot, dyke, poofter, rainbow, "civil" union, (another misnomer) or "Actively gay college mens rights to donate blood into the health system via. the discriminating Red Cross"? are part of the text?

*sigh*
End of my contribution to this well worn subject.
Maybe for next years Freshman class.
For review, see Wendy McElroy's iFeminist comprehensive archives under CaptDMO .

why the hell not, let the dykes be as misrable as the men